3
comments:

Anonymous
said...

"Where are we going to live?"

Does this lady assume that not being able to live in Noe Valley means she can't live anywhere? Does she think she has a right to live in whatever neighborhood she wants to regardless of the economics? Does that mean that low-income housing should be built on the Broadway Gold Coast in Pacific Heights so that people of all stripes can live there? Good luck with that one.

Saying that we have to have more housing or more low-income housing **in San Francisco** is a fallacy. The city line is an arbitrary distinction that does not correspond to the real economic ecosystem we live in (the Bay Area). Saying that people "must" be allowed to live in SF -- that West Oakland or Daly City aren't part of the same community -- doesn't hold water (let alone that they "must" be allowed to live in the neighborhood of choice within the city).

I find that fallacy particularly irksome when people say they want to live or should be able to live in Noe Valley and that we should destroy Noe Valley as we know it (bulldoze the Victorians and build high-rises) so that they can live in this neighborhood that they claim to love -- love to death, it seems.

In reality, the only way to create an abundance of affordable housing is to build an abundance of housing in places that the wealthy don't want to live. If you build a lot of high-rises in the Noe, they will be luxury high-rises and fill up with luxury people. Think not? Look at Manhattan -- wall-to-wall high-rises and less affordable than San Francisco. If you want affordable housing, build those highrises at 19th & Taraval, or in West Oakland, or in Daly City. Yes, that means that the speaker in that video doesn't get to live in Noe Valley. I think she could get over that, just like I long ago got over the fact that I'll never have a mansion on Broadway.